Posted by Tane on September 27, 2009 at 7:02pm in Politics
The key statement is "the eventual passage of the Akaka Bill, which would pave the way for native Hawaiians to achieve a limited form of self-rule similar to that of American Indians and Alaska natives." The word is limited which eliminates self-determination.
Tne misleading statement regarding schools and education is that they give charter schools an average of $1,150.00 per child and nothing for the 65,000 hawaiian children in public schools. Public schools' budget per child is approximately $4,500.00 per child. This is pretty much the precentage disparity that the DOE gives the charter schools vs. the public schools. Reasoning that the Hawaiian children in public schools benefit from the $4,500.00 whereas the charter schools receive a paltry $1,150.00 from OHA and a dismal amount from DOE.
Charter schools are made up of mostly Kanaka Maoli children and the curricullum emphasizes culture, its values and language and qualifying for higher education. Therefore, it makes more sense to concentrate on supporting the charter schools. The public schools profile kanaka Maoli and sends them through its system as the bare necessities in making them good Americans subject to its system; then spit them out. DOE sets a double-standard and two separate criteria in charter vs public education criteria.
I don't know where OHA is going with this by making such a comparison with its education allotment. Then I notice it has included governance as one of its itinerary of focus ["The plan focuses on improvement in six key areas: education, health, culture, governance, economic self-sufficiency and natural resources (land and water)."] How are the priorities listed as from the most important to the least? What does governance have to do with this at all that one cannot get from education? What does natural resources mean to them as improving? Wouldn't natural resources be encompassed within health education culture and economic self-sufficiency?
Governance and natural resources are a separate item that deals with national importance and preservation outside of the context within the U.S. system. With the Akaka Bill this would be surrendered to the U. S. for control and ownership. Is this for the betterment of the conditions of the native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commision Act, 1920, as amended.....? How does this fit in with their mandate?
Tane
OHA strategy hedges Akaka bet
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Sep 27, 2009
The reorganization at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs positions the agency for the eventual passage of the Akaka Bill, which would pave the way for native Hawaiians to achieve a limited form of self-rule similar to that of American Indians and Alaska natives.
OHA's 2010-2016 strategic plan distills the agency's diffused focus on numerous small initiatives that help individual Hawaiians into a broad, clear vision more suitable for a governing body. It streamlines the organization around three main objectives: advocacy for native Hawaiians, research and assets management.
Rather than being premature, this new approach -- which aims for the deepest positive impact among the largest number of people -- is the correct step whether or not the Akaka Bill becomes law this year, bringing with it the federal recognition that would allow Hawaiians to organize their own government within the existing U.S. and state ones.
The shift comes as OHA, like the rest of the state, suffers through the recession. The agency's $32 million operating budget -- which comes from investment income, state funding and ceded land revenues -- will be trimmed by about $500,000 a year, achieved by eliminating 28 of 178 jobs, including 16 vacant positions.
OHA administrator Clyde Namuo insists that budget stress did not inspire the new strategy, but is simply a reality factored into the path the agency has chosen to pursue as the best way to help the most native Hawaiians.
The plan focuses on improvement in six key areas: education, health, culture, governance, economic self-sufficiency and natural resources (land and water).
In education, for example, OHA researchers could investigate why native Hawaiian students as a whole tend to lag behind other ethnic groups in school achievement and use that data to improve policies, methods and curriculums at a variety of educational institutions, thereby helping the largest number of Hawaiian students, no matter where they go to school.
That's in contrast to OHA's current, more individual, approach. For example, last year the agency spent about $2.3 million on 2,000 Hawaiian children in charter schools -- which works out to about $1,150 per child -- when there are 65,000 Hawaiian students in regular public schools.
The agency, established by the Constitutional Convention in 1978, recognizes that it can maximize its impact by prioritizing its efforts.
The research-based, results-oriented approach de-emphasizes the personal lobbying that can end up with the most vociferous opponents or proponents of a particular program winning the day, whether or not their desires are best for the largest segment of the Hawaiian population.
The new strategy also reflects OHA's optimism that the Akaka Bill will pass, and puts the agency at the forefront in the creation of a native Hawaiian governing entity.
The reorganization at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs positions the agency for the eventual passage of the Akaka Bill, which would pave the way for native Hawaiians to achieve a limited form of self-rule similar to that of American Indians and Alaska natives.
OHA's 2010-2016 strategic plan distills the agency's diffused focus on numerous small initiatives that help individual Hawaiians into a broad, clear vision more suitable for a governing body. It streamlines the organization around three main objectives: advocacy for native Hawaiians, research and assets management.
Rather than being premature, this new approach -- which aims for the deepest positive impact among the largest number of people -- is the correct step whether or not the Akaka Bill becomes law this year, bringing with it the federal recognition that would allow Hawaiians to organize their own government within the existing U.S. and state ones.
The shift comes as OHA, like the rest of the state, suffers through the recession. The agency's $32 million operating budget -- which comes from investment income, state funding and ceded land revenues -- will be trimmed by about $500,000 a year, achieved by eliminating 28 of 178 jobs, including 16 vacant positions.
OHA administrator Clyde Namuo insists that budget stress did not inspire the new strategy, but is simply a reality factored into the path the agency has chosen to pursue as the best way to help the most native Hawaiians.
The plan focuses on improvement in six key areas: education, health, culture, governance, economic self-sufficiency and natural resources (land and water).
In education, for example, OHA researchers could investigate why native Hawaiian students as a whole tend to lag behind other ethnic groups in school achievement and use that data to improve policies, methods and curriculums at a variety of educational institutions, thereby helping the largest number of Hawaiian students, no matter where they go to school.
That's in contrast to OHA's current, more individual, approach. For example, last year the agency spent about $2.3 million on 2,000 Hawaiian children in charter schools -- which works out to about $1,150 per child -- when there are 65,000 Hawaiian students in regular public schools.
The agency, established by the Constitutional Convention in 1978, recognizes that it can maximize its impact by prioritizing its efforts.
The research-based, results-oriented approach de-emphasizes the personal lobbying that can end up with the most vociferous opponents or proponents of a particular program winning the day, whether or not their desires are best for the largest segment of the Hawaiian population.
The new strategy also reflects OHA's optimism that the Akaka Bill will pass, and puts the agency at the forefront in the creation of a native Hawaiian governing entity.
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
Why do we insist on supporting the U.S. Manifest Destiny doctrines and its Akaka Bill that promotes it? The U.S. has to de-occupy Hawai'i and change its barbaric ways.
"One nation documented the U.S. as a Terrorist Nation" is what United States has been ever since January 16, 1893 with their invasion and occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I know of no other nation then the Hawaiian Kingdom nation that has been occupied more heavenly with the Terrorist Military forces of the United States. Since January 16, 1893 the Terrorist Military forces of the United States has never left Hawaii. The Hawaiian Kingdom has been under the occupation of the Terrorist Miliatry forces of the United States thru an Act of War of over 116th years. The AKaKa BILL continues the occupation and Act of War on the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Kanaka Maoli people. Long Live The Hawaiian, o Pomaikaiokalani
It's disingenuous to support the racist U.S. manifest destiny doctrines by pushing for the Akaka Bill to create a tribal governing entity which usurps the Kingdom of Hawai'i which still exists under belligerent occupation. Anything short of de-occupation is criminal and continues the fraud. That hearing you held re: your sponsored bill to create a tribal entity for the native Hawaiians was farcical and contradictory to the facts. This bill is unsatisfactory and a blatant travesty of justice. I know there is no treaty of cession or annexation and everything subsequently done after 1893 is null and void as well as criminal. To force us to integrate with the U.S. is repugnant and unlawful. There is nothing positive in complying to the seditious whims of the United States. You are correct that these facts should be brought up and addressed properly and lawfully. Your bill as written and intended is not the way to address the violations committed by the U.S.
Replies
It's disingenuous to support the racist U.S. manifest destiny doctrines by pushing for the Akaka Bill to create a tribal governing entity which usurps the Kingdom of Hawai'i which still exists under belligerent occupation. Anything short of de-occupation is criminal and continues the fraud. That hearing you held re: your sponsored bill to create a tribal entity for the native Hawaiians was farcical and contradictory to the facts. This bill is unsatisfactory and a blatant travesty of justice. I know there is no treaty of cession or annexation and everything subsequently done after 1893 is null and void as well as criminal. To force us to integrate with the U.S. is repugnant and unlawful. There is nothing positive in complying to the seditious whims of the United States. You are correct that these facts should be brought up and addressed properly and lawfully. Your bill as written and intended is not the way to address the violations committed by the U.S.
Tane